+- Blitzortung.org Forum (https://forum.blitzortung.org/mybb)
+-- Forum: Public Forums (https://forum.blitzortung.org/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=29)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://forum.blitzortung.org/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=31)
+--- Thread: Efficiency (/showthread.php?tid=1261)
RE: Efficiency - Egon - 2015-06-22
The calculation of the performance should not be taken so seriously. The additional factor
min (Strikes / signal (s), signal (s) / Strikes)
does not always make sense. The main problem is the lack of information.
When a strong storm is far away, which is possible if the region is very large, then the factor signal(s)/Strikes is very small, although the station is very well adjusted. It is just a compromise.
Much fun,
Egon
RE: Efficiency - Knickohr - 2015-06-25
I played a little bit with the "new" efficiency :
![[Image: efficiency_l.png]](http://www.sternhimmel-ueber-ulm.de/blitz/efficiency_l.png)
Creating a small script which shows it in a 3D-diagramm. It's updating every Minute. Good performing stations are in the middle.
Thomas
RE: Efficiency - Steph - 2015-06-25
(2015-06-25, 14:57)Knickohr Wrote: I played a little bit with the "new" efficiencySo did I:
Example:
http://crna.zapto.org/plotblitz/efficiency.php?id=233
(Database is still building)
Usage:
Code:
http://crna.zapto.org/plotblitz/efficiency.php?id=Station-IDxsize = diagram width (default 1440) [x - 3000]
ysize = diagram height (default 400) [y - 3000]
line = line width (default 2) [1 - 20]
noslope = disable line smoothing (default 0) [0 or 1]
RE: Efficiency - see the grass growing - Knickohr - 2015-06-27
Today, some small storms are coming in. It's nice to watch the 3 different efficiencies (S,M,L) for my stations :
![[Image: efficiency_m.png]](http://www.sternhimmel-ueber-ulm.de/blitz/efficiency_m.png)
![[Image: efficiency_s.png]](http://www.sternhimmel-ueber-ulm.de/blitz/efficiency_s.png)
Efficiency for station 1006 over the last 24 hours (database ist still building up) :
![[Image: efficiency_g.png]](http://www.sternhimmel-ueber-ulm.de/blitz/efficiency_g.png)
(red = efficiency L, green = efficiency M, yellow = efficiency S, blue = efficiency from lightningmaps.org)
Thomas
RE: Efficiency - Gerhard.Wittevee - 2015-07-19
Quote:EgonThe calculation of the performance should not be taken so seriously. The additional factor
min (Strikes / signal (s), signal (s) / Strikes)
does not always make sense. The main problem is the lack of information.
When a strong storm is far away, which is possible if the region is very large, then the factor signal(s)/Strikes is very small, although the station is very well adjusted. It is just a compromise.
Much fun,
Egon
I am puzzled
I'm trying to get optimal results, and I use the participants page for checking the results. For what I understand the signals-rate is used in the calculation. So how can it be that one station has about double the signals, and less strikes be higher in the ranking? This would mean that sending more signals, and record less strikes is better...
But I could be missing something...
Gerhard
RE: Efficiency - Steph - 2015-07-19
I'm interpreting it this way: if there are only few strikes in your range (50, 500, 5000), it isn't affecting the efficiency much, when you have a lot of signals.
There is no optimal setting for all eventualities. I think if you're in the two-figure-number efficiency, it's all good
RE: Efficiency - Knolau - 2015-07-19
(2015-07-19, 14:37)Gerhard.Wittevee Wrote:Quote:So how can it be that one station has about double the signals, and less strikes be higher in the ranking?
Good question
I regularly take a look at this tables to control the work of my station and to compare it with the stations in my neighborhood. BO NeighborsBut very often i don´t understand what I see. There shouldn´t be so big differences.
The explanation of Egon does not convince me. I think there is something wrong with the new calculation. I know, that I should not take it seriously, but I am always surprised about the results.
Cheers
Knolau
RE: Efficiency - Gerhard.Wittevee - 2015-07-19
Quote:I know, that I should not take it seriously
I agree that we should not have a competition. That does not help the network as a whole. But these values are the only way to compare, and to improve our stations. Those improvements are in the interest of the network as a whole. That is why, as Egon wrote (with a
) "To punish stations who send a lot of trash", a calculation taking the number of signals into account is a good idea. But comparing just got harder. With the old calculation I could change gain- or threshold and see the station creeping up the list, or going down the list. The new values change constantly, so comparing even your own settings is virtually impossible. I'd like to see a sort of "quality"-value that is comparable. Not for competition, but comparison.
Gerhard
RE: Efficiency - Knickohr - 2015-07-20
The best way to tune a station is to optimize it in this way that every detected signal is a stroke !
But not every stroke is registered by a single station. Try to optimize "quotas" Locating ratio and Stroke ratio at lightningmaps.org. A good starting is, if both values has nearly the same value, whether they are low or high.
Your station doesn't have the claim receiving all strokes (in your area) !
Thomas
RE: Efficiency - Gerhard.Wittevee - 2015-07-20
(2015-07-20, 09:21)Knickohr Wrote: The best way to tune a station is to optimize it in this way that every detected signal is a stroke !
But not every stroke is registered by a single station. Try to optimize "quotas" Locating ratio and Stroke ratio at lightningmaps.org. A good starting is, if both values has nearly the same value, whether they are low or high.
Your station doesn't have the claim receiving all strokes (in your area) !
Thomas
Thanks Thomas,
I am aware of the fact that there are more ways of optimizing my stations. But this does not answer the questions that I posted here.
Gerhard